monty57

I'm not a fan of adding Puig's attitude to the team, but after thinking about Stearns' line of reasoning, I'm coming around to the idea: 2016 was the season where the Brewers didn't care if they won or lost. We were able to throw a bunch of question marks all over the field and see which ones "sank" and which ones "swam." While they are not going to go overboard trying to win in 2017, they don't want to put out a roster with the potential to lose 100 games. If Braun is gone, it leaves a huge hole to fill, and as LouisEly stated, our prospects aren't ready to fill it (not that many players could replace Braun). Therefore, if we trade him solely for prospects, we could be replacing Braun's production with replacement-level production until Brinson is up (and who knows if he'd hit the ground running). That could mean we'd have a team that could fall apart. Puig is talented, but both his attitude and recent performance have his value at an all-time low. At his worst, he's still a mid-.700 OPS OF, who won't sink the team like someone like Flores could. At his best, he's one of the best hitters in baseball, making him a prime candidate to buy low and potentially sell for a gold mine. Brinson and others will be ready before too long, and Puig is only signed through 2018, so he would almost certainly be traded by no later than next offseason (prior to 2018). Worst case is that Puig's attitude tears the team apart, and I would hope that management knows their players enough that they wouldn't bring him on if they thought this could happen. Barring that, worst case seems to be that they would replace a .900+ OPS OF for a .750 OPS OF plus some prospects. That's the downside, which would be a step back but not the end of the world. The best case is that in addition to the other prospects they'd get in the trade, they get "good Puig," who hits for a .900+ OPS and regains his value so they can trade him in a year for a lot more young talent. As long as they also get some other prospects in the trade, Stearns limits his potential to look completely foolish in this deal, but it could turn out to be another "franchise saving" trade if it pans out. Since that would be the third "franchise saving" trade since the beginning of the rebuild, our future would look really bright. Again, this assumes that we also get other prospects in the deal. Braun is a better hitter with more years of control, so he should be worth more than Puig alone. Sorry if this doesn't fit exactly into the thread, but I think that if this trade goes through, which seems somewhat likely, then the Brewers can still be a team that could reach .500 next year, while increasing their young talent base, with the potential to increase it even more in the future.

the only circumstance where I'm okay with Perez on the bench with Cordell, is if Braun were shifted back to third, I'd just as soon put Carter at shortstop :-)

He could have ended it after the first sentence Yeah, but I'm long-winded :-)

Many of those moves were made only because of management's decision to change direction. All these things are not done in a vacuum, but rather seem to have been done according to a plan (which is wonderful) as opposed to the "patch a hole" method to which we all became accustomed. 1) Segura's bounce back is great, but it's not for the Brewers. In his stead, we have one of the pitchers who will be in our somewhat tattered rotation for a while, our starting 3B who netted us a prospect in trade, and one of our top prospects, who is part of the reason we now have one of the top two farms in baseball. 2) The Villar trade likely wouldn't have happened if Segura was not traded (see 1 above). 3) By now, everyone on this board is well aware that Khris Davis can hit home runs. However, he hit for a .246 average and .304 OBP, limiting his offensive value, and his arm is weaker than most high schoolers', allowing runners carte blanche on the basepaths. That said, trading him opened up a corner spot for Santana (who had been playing CF due to Davis and Braun being on the roster), which is probably why the Broxton trade (see 6 below) was made. Consequently, making the Broxton trade opened up first base, so instead of being stuck with a AAAA first baseman, Stearns took a flier by signing Carter (see 8 below) 4) Braun's ability was not in question, just his health. It's wonderful to see that he had a relatively healthy season. 5) Like Braun, Lucroy's ability was not in question. He was just signed for a short enough period that trading him when he had high value and we weren't in the playoff hunt instead of letting him walk to free agency after 2016 made sense. He was on this team, and we were not a playoff contender. Now we have three more really good prospects who should help us to the playoffs in the future. 6) Broxton was a great pickup (and he wasn't the only one in that trade). This trade, and Broxton getting substantial playing time after a horrific start, likely wouldn't have happened if we were "going for it." 7) I'm very happy Davies has been successful, but again, trading Parra for a prospect and giving that prospect a spot in the rotation was done because we are not "going for it." We could have easily signed another Lohse this past offseason to keep Davies in the minors, or relegated to the 'pen. 8) I love watching Carter hit, but it's unlikely we would have given time to a guy who had such a horrible 2015 and was benched on a playoff team (one that had a DH). This season was an ideal time to give guys like him a shot, and in his case (in addition to guys like Villar, Broxton, Guerra and Davies) it paid off. 9) Like Davies, I'm very glad for Guerra's success. He never would have gotten a shot at starting over the past decade, as we would have signed a 30-something "proven" guy to a $10-15MM per year / 3-4 year deal rather than let an "unproven" journeyman 30-year-old get a chance. We will never know how many opportunities like this we missed over the past decade because we needed "proven" on the MLB roster. 10) I am not surprised at all that Jeffress and Thornburg have shown success as closers. Like Lucroy, they were both on this year's team and we didn't win. Jeffress (and Smith) were traded because the market for relievers was unbelievably hot. Had it been more normal, they would likely still be on the Brewers. If Thronburg is traded this offseason, that's the reason. Naming someone "Closer" is probably the easiest way to quickly turn a somewhat valuable player into a very valuable player. Jeffress is good, but not one of the best relievers in baseball, but by naming him closer, his value rose and he was sought after and therefore traded. 11) Perez was a good find by Melvin, and his "super utility" status became known because in a down year like this the team took a chance at trying him out all over the field to see if he could handle it. That makes him much more valuable for future Brewer teams that may have a shot at the playoffs. 12) The second Wild Card spot does put a lot more teams in playoff contention. With our pitching, we weren't winning 85-86 games this year. However, with the moves listed above in addition to all those not listed, we are now in good shape to be pushing for the playoffs a lot sooner than most would have expected when the rebuild was announced mid-way though the 2015 season. I think what management has done, turning an aging, under-performing, expensive MLB roster with one of the worst farms in baseball into a young, cheap, athletic, exciting roster with one of the best farms in baseball in just over one season is phenomenal. Looking at where we are today vs where we were mid-way through the 2015 season, I can't believe that anyone would still say that what the team did was a mistake.

I think that's a reach. Yeah, I know players are different but Carlos Gomez loved Milwaukee and hated Houston, so I doubt the relative lack of "Spanish population/influence" is a problem for the Brewers. I could see how a player losing his son could have tremendous impact, and how a change of scenery could be a benefit (it could also be a hindrance, depending on the palyer).

The Brewer regime under Melvin seemed to look for players with one plus plus skill (usually power), while Stearns seems to like more versatile, athletic, well rounded players. We'll see how it turns out, but it should be fun to watch. I hope Villar can pick up that final HR and have an historic season after being basically a scrap-heap pick-up last offseason.

I see Anderson as a good back-end of the rotation guy who will log a bunch of innings for a few years when we don't have good alternatives. When the more talented prospects force their way onto the MLB scene, hopefully he will have shown enough that we can trade him for something of value. Don't get me wrong, I would love for him to become a #2/3 guy, but I just think he's more a #4/5 guy, and that's fine. We need that right now, and other teams will always need guys like that, so he should have trade value in a few years when hopefully we will have more talented guys than him in the rotation. So as to the trade as a whole, I'm glad for Segura, but I really just care about the Brewers. They got some good play from Hill and were able to flip him. They will hopefully get a few seasons from Anderson and then flip him, and the real key to the trade will be whether Diaz can reach his potential, as he could be a good MLB player if he does. Plus, as a previous poster stated, we may not have done the Villar deal if we hadn't traded Segura, so in that light, Villar has matched Segura, and the rest of the added value is "gravy."

This may be crazy, but looking at that lineup leads me to believe that if we don't trade Braun we could be a .500 team next year. A lot will depend on whether our rotation looks like the first half of 2016 or the second half, but we have some talent on the MLB roster, and we have Hader, Brinson, Ortiz, Phillips, etc. backing up the group mentioned in the opening post. Plus, I'd bet that Stearns will find another surprise player or two before the season starts. To "play the game" of the thread, I think you're pretty spot on, but I doubt that they get rid of both Guerra and Garza in order for Suter to be the #5 unless we get tremendous value back for both of those pitchers. I think the rotation will be Davies, Peralta, Nelson, Guerra, Anderson with Suter as the "long man/6th starter," Jungman in AAA ready to step in right away, and Hader coming up after curtoff. Woodruff, Lopez and Ortiz could also be in AAA, making for a really talented AAA rotation, if only they didn't play in Colorado Springs.

I was going to mention the AAA stadium in jest. It'll never happen, but that would be awesome and may be the only way we ever get out of the worst AAA situation in the majors. As to the final idea "casino/hotel attached to the stadium," a casino isn't possible unless he wants to give the stadium to a native American tribe, but finding a way to put a hotel up would be great for out-of-the-area fans. I live about 1-1.5 hours away, so it's tough to make it to weekday night games and still make it to work the next day.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/new-details-emerge-in-jose-fernandezs-deadly-boating-accident-154439898.html Appears they were coming in from late night/early morning (3:15 am) fishing, didn't see the breakwater, and hit it at full speed. Boating at night is very difficult, and it's easy to see how this happened. Weren't drinking or doing anything wrong... just a tragic accident.

We've traded for an awful lot of guys who project as 3s best case I trust your take on prospects a lot more than my own, but do you really see Hader, Ortiz, and Bickford as "3's best case"? I'd like to think that we could get at least one solid #2 out of that group, and once the team starts to gel, we'll go FA and Attanasio will authorize the use of our $70-90M of free cash flow to sign a TOR guy. Back to the topic of the post. Broxton has looked very good in CF this year, but the MLB writeup on Brinson mentions that his glove is likely to prop up his floor, so he must be at least somewhat renown for his defense in center field. Agree. I think Brison has star potential, and a lot of his value will come from his glove. If Broxton is for real, and Brinson comes close to his potential, we could have a really fun OF to watch for a long time.

The main reason I don't generally like adding guys in their 30's is that they start to regress during the years that they are making a lot of money. In other words, you are usually signing them to a big money free agent deal or contract extension, and paying for their prime year performance when they're past their prime and have a lot of wear-and-tear on their bodies. That's not the case with Guerra, who is still pre-arby for two more seasons. There is no huge rush to trade him unless you think he is going to crash and burn and you want to snooker someone out of some top prospects before that happens. That said, there is still a lot of concern about him, as there would be about anyone who was not on anyone's radar who suddenly had a great year as a 30-something. Because of that, if someone offered a top 50 prospect (as TLB mentioned), I'd take that deal in a heartbeat. But that may also be the reason teams would not be willing to trade us a top 50 prospect. In that case, I'm happy to put him back in the rotation next season. If he continues to perform, his trade value would increase substantially, or an even better case would be that with him pitching that well, and others performing, we could be a much better team that isn't looking at trading someone in his 2nd year of arby who has back-to-back ~3.00 ERA seasons.

I find your one sided approach frustrating at best, the very fact that the Brewers are averagish after trading so many players actually proves the counter argument to your point. Simply put, that you don't have to hang onto high priced veterans to win. Very important point made here. We traded away guys who were proven for guys who were unproven, so we were able to stockpile a lot of talented guys in a few trades. In addition to adding lots of prospect talent, this also allowed a mix of talented young players and "rebound potential" veterans to get significant playing time. Net result: We are about the same in the win/loss column as we were prior going into "rebuild mode," but we now have a young, inexpensive team and one of the top two farm systems in baseball, when we had an aging, expensive team with one of the worst farms in baseball. What the Brewer management has accomplished over the past year+ is pretty amazing and bodes well for the future of the franchise.

If they are bowled over with a trade offer, then certainly trade him this offseason. Otherwise, hold onto him until next deadline, when a lot more questions (both about him and the team in general) will be answered.

Also, for the first month or so of the season, many teams rarely even use their 5th starter because of all the early days off. I don't see us starting 2017 with a six-man rotation. Edit: Of course after I say that, I see that the Brewers only have two days off in April next year :-)

Everyone's definition of "star" is different, so it's hard to say if he'll be a "star." I think he'll have an above average bat with poor defense. Not Ryan Braun who has an elite bat with poor defense, but still a starting MLB player. His defense will drag down his overall value somewhat, so he should be in consideration to maybe take a few reps at 1B, but his bat should keep him in the starting lineup. He's a great talent to have on the team at this point, but his long-term future with the franchise will depend on how our other prospects pan out, and whether he is able to move to LF or 1B. Even with a good bat, I could see some of our other OFs (Brinson, Broxton, Phillips, etc) being more valuable than Santana down the road because while they can also hit, their defense will add value. We'll just have to wait to see which of those guys pan out, and where we are as a franchise when they get here. Santana still has some growing to do, but he's shown the ability to hit MLB pitching at a young age, so it appears that he's at least an average starting MLB player. It's nice to know that Santana could be a long-term answer if some of our prospects fail, or good trade bait down the road if our prospects succeed.

Here's one for AJ Pierzynski... Okay, so maybe I was wrong in my comment about Pierzynski not having problems with his teammates :-)

There are different circumstances for different players. Here's a Bleacher Report write up from Dec '15 regarding Puig: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2597460-is-there-anybody-left-in-los-angeles-whom-yasiel-puig-hasnt-alienated He seems like someone who has turned players on the Dodgers against each other. That is what I'd consider a clubhouse cancer and would like to avoid. Meanwhile, there are players like Pierzynski (who you mentioned) who seemed to upset the other team, but never had a problem with his teammates. I'd say Molina is like that with the Cardinals. Those players can get your team "hated" by other fans, but can actually bring your team together. Bonds was his own special category, and the dislike towards him is mostly due to steroids allowing him to add about 100 lbs of muscle and put together video game statistic years when he was around 40 years old. There are all kinds of personalities in baseball, and not everyone is going to get along, but most can at least tolerate each other and cheer each other on as teammates. Puig seems to be one of those few that really can tear a team apart.

I think Puig was the "Aaron Hill piece" in that potential trade. The Dodgers would insist we take him in order to get him off the roster and clear salary, and in return we'd get better prospects. If this ends up being the route we take, I hope (A) the prospects we'd get back would be mind blowing, and (B) Puig can revive his career like Hill did, so we'd be able to trade him away for more prospects, and © Puig stops the Prima Donna routine and just plays baseball. If Puig really is the clubhouse cancer he's portrayed as, I don't really want him anywhere near our rebuilding team. When you have that attitude around a bunch of high-priced vets, you're a nuisance. When you have that attitude around a young roster, you could cause a lot of harm.

It would be sad to see Braun traded. As long as he's in the lineup, the Brewer offense is relevant, but the writing seems to be on the wall that he will be traded. As you said, he's proven himself after his injuries, and during the offseason teams will likely have more payroll room to fit him in. It is nice to see that they're demanding a good return and not just salary relief. I'd expect a lot in terms of prospects if the Brewers pay a big chunk of his salary.

If you don't give people a chance based on how hard they throw you risk losing out on a viable starter. This team cannot afford to miss out on any starting option. Given we are not likely to be competitive next season anyway there is no reason to eliminate anyone from competing for a starting role. Looking for players the traditional scouts hate was one of the "Moneyball" ways of finding value. Most people will disregard a player like Suter, but what would you rather have, someone who looks bad but gets results, or someone who looks good but doesn't get results? Davies looks like a 12-year old, and Suter throws like a high schooler, but if they get batters out they should get their chance to shine. All the arguments against Suter are based on what people assume will happen. Let's give him a shot and see what actually happens before we give up on him.

If I were to do a Villar extension, it wouldn't be near 6/$55. The reason to sign these extension is to save money by transferring risk, so think of it as an insurance policy for the player - they player pays by giving up potential income in return for the guaranteed income regardless of future occurrences (injuries, poor play, etc.). Since the team is taking on all of the risk in a guaranteed contract, the player has to accept less than he would receive if he went year-to-year to free agency. Six years would be right, as you would get one pre-arby year, all three arby years, and two free agent years (age 30 & 31 seasons). The pre-arby year is around $550k. Arby maybe $1.5M, $3M, $5M. That's around $10M, and let's say $10-12M per free agent year, 6/$30-35 would be about where I'd be. Maybe a little higher if I'm way low on the arby years. Villar could get hurt tomorrow and never play again and he's not guaranteed anything. If he signs, he is guaranteed $30-35M, which should set him and his family up for life. The only reason teams should do early extensions is to save money on guys they feel pretty secure in having on the team for an extended period. Therefore, it makes sense to extend guys who will be hitting FA when they're in their 20's. Not so much when they don't hit the majors until they're 24-25 and we already have under team control through their prime. Villar is on the cusp for this, as he'll turn 30 early in his first FA year. I would consider doing these types of extensions on our top prospects early on. Arcia would be a good option for a Braun-type deal (the first one, not the second extension). Brinson could be on the table a year or two from now. I'm more leery of extending pitchers, but if guys like Hader, Ortiz, etc continue to improve, I wouldn't mind seeing one or more of them locked up for a couple extra years. Bottom line is that you have to be pretty confident in the player's future, you have to sign them young, you have to get 2-3 of their free agent years, and you have to get a substantial discount from what they could potentially get if they play at a high level and went year-to-year. Otherwise, it doesn't make any sense for the team to take on the risk. It is every player's right to go year-to-year for more money, but the team needs to understand that these players are not long-term answers, and should therefore be traded before they get to free agency. Finally, while I love these types of extensions, not all players deserve them. Some guys can help the team, but aren't worth the risk (or we have other options). I'd put guys like Santana, Gennett, and Perez in this category.

The Crew is one or two surprises away from the timetable speeding up. This is where the questions come in. Surprises can go both ways. Brinson could come up next year and play like an All Star, or he could sit all year in AAA. Villar can prove that he's a legitimate .850 OPS guy, or he can prove that this year was a fluke and hit something like .230/.290/.380. Peralta could have "found it" in the minors and continue to go eight strong innings every outing, or he could regress back to the pitcher that got sent to the minors in the first place. From what we see now, it looks like Villar should be a good leadoff guy, Braun is a strong #3 and Carter should be fine at #5. Hopefully Santana can stay healthy and make better contact, which would push his OPS over .800. Gennett looked like a better all around (not specifically platoon) hitter, and Perez at least should be a solid utility player. We don't know what we have in Broxton, but the talent is certainly there, and although Arcia is not an "offense first" player, he should improve his offensive stats from where they are this year. Meanwhile, we hopefully won't give so many PAs to guys like Flores, Walsh, Elmore, etc that were really, really bad this year. Our starting rotation is just one big question mark. The guys who seemed to be fairly predictable (Nelson, Anderson, Peralta) were all over the map. Our solid guys (Guerra, Davies) are still unproven, and everyone keeps wanting to get rid of Garza, but he's pitching okay now, and may even be around next year. They could come in next year and look like a competent staff, or they could all have ERA's over 5. They're at least competitive now. Adding 10 wins is a lot, but it is easier to jump from 70 to 80 than it is from 80 to 90. They have the talent to be a .500 team next year, but there are questions. First, will they hold on to guys like Braun, Thornberg, Carter, and all of their starting pitchers. Then, which guys will surprise to the upside, and which will crash and burn. At least we're headed in the right direction and they're still fun to watch unlike most teams in the first year of their rebuilds.

Despite the awkward package, Hart was pretty fast. Yes he was fast early in his career, which was his one saving grace in the OF, as he wasn't very good at reading the ball or taking good routes. He was also a 20/20 guy at that stage. Then he added a bunch of weight and started hitting 30+ HR, but the extra weight caused knee problems that really slowed him down.

Santana doesn't seem comfortable in the OF, and he just isn't very good there. Basically, he turns too many outs into doubles by missing fly balls that someone with his athletic ability should catch. We have some promising prospects who play good OF defense which could help us win more games. I still believe in Santana's bat, and he could probably become a decent fielding 1B, so it is reasonable to think that he could eventually move to first to make room for better defensive OFs when they're ready. I'm not a big proponent of throwing guys to the wolves, so I'd suggest that Santana should play winter ball after missing so much time this year, and while there he should play a good deal of first base to see how he does. Some guys can't make the move, but most guys who are capable of playing MLB baseball can make the transition to first.